www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Melkite--Antiochian Reunion?

Does anyone know what the status is in regard to the Melkite/Antiochian reunion push? This document makes it seems like the solution is right around the corner. http://www.melkite.org/sa3.htm
However, perhaps it is just being overly optimistic. I do find it heartening how blatant the melkites are about being eastern though. They are completely blunt about their Orthodoxy.

Here was joint response by The Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, and the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity:

http://www.ratzinger.it/documenti/BeatitudeMaximos.htm

How does this jive with Ratzinger's statements to the contrary in Principles of Catholic Theology? In that book he explicitly states that the East is only bound to the first thousand years. It seems that Rome flip-flops on this point. I wish they had a more consistent position.

Well, what we are required to believe as Catholics is the same for both Romans, Byzantine, Malabars, Copts, etc. And, despite the ongoin discussions on this Forum and disputations to the contrary, we do believe in Papal Infallibility, for example (of course, the idea of what exactly that means is also commonly debated). Whatever I am required to believe as a matter of absolute faith, of "dogma," as a Roman Catholic, you are required to believe as a Byzantine Catholic, and vice versa...

So if anyone wishes to disagree on that point (which some will), I will simply plug my ears and close my eyes and huff and puff and stomp, blocking out your dissent!

Logos Teen

Teen,

I agree that your position seems to be supported by the above statement but in his book Ratzinger explicitly rejects your position with relation to the Eastern Orthodox (he calls it the "maximalist" position I believe). Also, you may as well give up on reunification now because there is no way the East will sign onto the later fourteen councils hook, line, and sinker. In fact, even forcing existing Eastern Catholic churches to do so may force some out of communion. I don't know if you read the link but 24 out of the 26 participating Melkite bishops confessed to holding an identical faith to that of the Eastern Orthodox. You may not want to push your opinion too far lest you cause a revolt

Garrett - I don't advise this - your various bruises will really object to all the footstamping . The pain will be a totally unnecessary penance .

Just thole the fact that there will always be those who disagree .

Anhelyna,

LOL. Maybe I should keep the stomping to a minimum!

Matt,

You have pinpointed why I hold little hope for fullscale reunion with the Eastern Orthodox. I never have, really.

And as for the Melkite bishops or faithful, I think in a way it would be much healthier for there to be an open "revolt," as you say, though I wouldn't use that word necessarily. What good is communion with the same beliefs are not held? Why are those bishops not in communion with those with whom they claim to share an identical faith, and yet are in communion with others who, it seems to be implied, do not share this same faith. For whoever wishes to leave concerning that point, I would never, ever point fingers of blame, but rather commend them for living up to their beliefs. The status quo, if it is truly as you say, makes very little sense to me and seems untruthful. I respect those who act on their beliefs, even if I disagree...yanno what I mean?

Logos Teen

Matt-

My understanding of the subject:

Rome and Damascus (i.e. the Antiochian Orthodox) basically said that the "Zogbhy initiative" was premature. Based on my readings of subsequent articles by various bishops and Patriarch Gregorios, I do believe it remains the basic position of the Melkite church.

You're best bet for an answer on this would be ask one of the priests at Holy Transfiguration after one of the various liturgies. Post-Paraklesis or post-Vespers would probably be the best times to do so over the next few weeks.

MarkosC

I have two comments on this

-1- Joseph Ratzinger was not a Pope when he wrote those things, a lot can happen to a mans perspective.

-2- There is considerable dispute yet about what the Papacy was actually like during the first 1000 years. This is fodder for some very lively discussions these days, probably because of these well-known statements. It could take 1000 years of argument to settle the matter.

Clearly the Papacy was under development the whole time, and century by century one can see a change.

If we could take the church back to a state much as it was between the Photian schism and the Humbertian schism we would be right back where we started: a church ready to break in two!

+T+
Michael

I think this is a big issue that is often overlooked. All sides agree that we should not expect more than what was there in the first millenium, but what precisely was there? There is considerable debate on this, with good documentation from both sides, IMO. The fact that we don't have an Empire anymore, and that we live in a world that's more inter-connected now than would have been humanly possible even at the height of the Roman Empire only adds to difficulty in determining which pre-millenial "Church" should be the Church of today.

I also agree that going back to what we had just prior to the Schism is just asking for another Schism. After all, we are nothing else but the development of what we had. What we need, if we ARE to be unified (which is a whole other question), is a new approach strongly informed by our mutual history. No sense going back exactly to the model that brought us Schism, in the interest of ending the Schism :p

Peace and God bless!

"We" say the citizen of a republic, don't have an empire anymore!!! Neither did Western Europe for very long after Christianity came on the scene. Eastern Europe managed to hang on for much longer.

If we have been keeping up to date with our Catholic Church news we would have seen how L'Osservatore Romano has changed the way the appointments and resignation of bishops is published in 2 separate sections.

Change is happening all the time.

This is an interesting, yet really intra Catholic discussion.

But just a couple of thoughts, especially for those who will be attending the Antiochian House of Studies later this month or early September.

First of all, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch politely stated its position on the matter, which in substance was similar to Rome's (although perhaps more sympathetically worded). It had no interest into entering any dual communion with the Melkites and in fact did not wish to discuss the situation outside of the total Orthodox Church. No agreement outside of a total Orthodox consensus would be entertained.

For those who will be students of His Eminence Met. Maximos at the AHOS, he is the Orthodox Chair of the American Dialogue. Perhaps the HOS students will hear about the dialogue from a most facinating perspective (including the evolution of the position of His Eminence Cardinal Joseph, to His Holiness Pope Benedict).

Christ Is Among Us! Indeed He Is And Ever Shall Be!

Three Cents

I was only refering to the Apostolic Christian Empire, not empires in general. No offense intended to those imperial citizens residing in more modern examples of such governance

I assume you are refering to the more "hands off" approach that's begun, with appointments and resignations in the non-Latin Patriarchal Churches simply being acknowledged as having occured by Rome? I think it's a wonderful change myself!

My concern isn't so much that the Catholic Church isn't moving forward and adapting (sometimes by reviving old customs and norms); I honestly think we will do so with or without the Eastern Orthodox being on board with us simply because we need to as a living and growing Communion of diverse traditions already in union. We will keep up this work even if all ecumenical talks were to break down completely, because for us the unity of "East and West" is already a reality to some extent, at least in that we are living in Communion with eachother. Such necessary growth and change can't be put on hold in all cases just because we're awaiting a response from the Eastern Orthodox. In short, I have no concerns that we won't continue to work towards a system that best accomodates all the facets of our Catholic Church.

I was more refering to talks between Eastern Orthodox and Catholics where some people long, misty-eyed, for a previous era as if an exact return to the pre-Schism model is all that's required for reunion. It's a view that I've encountered too frequently, and I feel that it's ultimately a no-go. If we can't deal with where we are and what we've become, then there's no hope for unity.

This, of course, doesn't mean that everything we have now must be accepted outright. It just means that there is more to it than merely setting back the clock, especially since the ticking of that clock led us to where we are in the first place :p

Peace and God bless!

Thankfully the dialogue that is in progress between the official representatives of the Pope and the various Patriarchs, is being conducted by those who don�t have misty eyes, nor are they yearning for some for some golden age of the past. They are scholars who know their areas of expertise very well.

I suspect that what others say among themselves is more connected with their attempts to understand what is happening in the centre of the arena where the real action is taking place.

Definately. We are lucky enough to have the Liturgy and Sacraments! The hard work can be done by those who are called to it. We are not out of the loop, but neither are we the ultimate decision makers. Our job is to keep the Faith and keep up the worship without straying. We're the fortunate ones in all this

Peace and God bless!